How ostrich-like is Roger Harrabin? Very, is the answer. His latest post on ClimateGate discusses the veracity or otherwise of the IPCC. Yet again, he deals with the topic without reference to a single climate realist. And throughout, he assumes that the IPCC is, and has been, a legitimate scientific undertaking.
He also asserts that irrespetive of what happened at CRU:
Other scientists tell me they doubt the inquiry will affect the main course of scientific opinion, as the CRU temperature data set is very similar to the two other global sets, both in the US.
Does he read anything but that which confirms his own views? Bishop Hill has this about GISS (the main US equivalent of CRU):
Since about 1990, there has been a reduction in thermometer counts globally. In the USA, the number has dropped from 1850 at peak (in the year 1968) to 136 now (in the year 2009). As you might guess, this has presented some “issues” for our thermal quilt. But do not fear, GIStemp will fill in what it needs, guessing as needed, stretching and fabricating until it has a result.
Who do you believe? A snake-oil salesman from the BBC or someone who actually researches and writes honestly about a topic which he knows about?
Results in today from the Science Museum and their “Count Me In” camapaign.
Unfortunately, more people counted out than in. So, that shows that there might be a problem?
Well, er yes, the problem is that people need to be shown the error of their ways!
Had the result been more in line with their hopes however, the conclusion would have been very different.
How much longer are we going to tolerate this bullshit from the alarmist cartel?
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about_us/press_and_media/press_releases/2009/12/Prove%20It%20Announcement.aspx
Not to worry, let CRU have a look at the results, problem sorted
BBC website now has a story and clip with Shukman – wondering why people dont get the warming thing – ‘its hard to understand’ he says.
No mention of the effects of Climategate at all!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8389547.stm
I posted on this elsewhere (we really do need a new general thread please!) about Shitman and his “the proles don’t get it” crap report.
We do get it, it’s a CON.
The latest piece of fiction about how far the seas will rise is just typical of the fake mumbo jumbo science that the BBC drops it trousers and bends over for.
When any of these reports comes out the BBC should be sceptical is that not the normal default position of a real journalist? Should it not be “prove it”?
Any report issued should be ignored unless the data they used is fully published, what computer model was used and what “assumptions” are made.
Those of you that have heard of the Drake equation (for calculation the likelihood of life in the universe) know that it’s all built on “assumptions” that means you can come up with any number you like 1 from to 1 with a load of zeros after it.
Of course none of the values (other than 1) can be proven yet, so science clearly understand that.
Yet with this climate change crap scientists are able to make all sort of false claims and these get treated as if FACT by the BBC.
If tossers like Harrabin and Shitman want to know why people are sceptical they should look at the lies and distortions the BBC pumps out as “facts”
ClimateGate is now on YouTube
Prof Jones has stepped down at CRU.
About time too.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/head-of-climate-unit-steps-down-pending-inquiry/
Von Beeb I loved that bit.
On a related note, not about Harriban, but about the rest of the ostriches at the BBC: This article demonstrates that even though reality has once again forced them to report it, they still cling to their false dogmas.
Himalayan glacier’s ‘mixed picture’
It seems that some people are now seeing evidence that the glaciers are in fact advancing and not disappearing at an alarming rate. However, the Beeboids, like the Christian believers upon whom they heap so much scorn, they cite Scripture when confronted with facts which contradict their beliefs.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had said that Himalayan glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world.
The panel observed: “If the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”
This report sparked concerns that there could be increased flooding in the short term, as glacial lakes suddenly overflowed.
They even manage to find a useful idiot scientist who finds a way to blame “Climate Change” for the advancement of glaciers. Not only that, but the data that might have caused the concern could possibly be out of date. Perhaps. That might be why the data showed that the Himalayan glaciers were retreating due to “Climate Change”. Not that it was bogus or misinterpreted or anything.
Here’s what the BBC doesn’t want you to know, because it conflicts with their religious beliefs:
Climategate: Imminent Demise of Glaciers Due to… a Typo!
The IPCC has been claiming Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035. The paper they used concluded 2350.
Yes, the BBC is in a way a victim of these charlatans just like the rest of us. But they reneged on their duty and refused to acknowledge or investigate other views, and in fact worked to suppress them. All due to bias.
Wait for revisions and don’t expect too much more (or anything) from Navin Singh Khadka, Environment reporter, BBC News
As I write, the suspension of Phil Jones is not on the BBC website…or if it is, it is well buried! I cant think why.
I be the investigation will not be very independent. I truly hope it is though.
Harrabin, Shitman and black should also resign.
Don’t bank on an independant investigation.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018144/climategate-the-whitewash-begins/
Phil Jones has “temporaily” stood down while an investigation into climategate happens
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6703400/Professor-at-centre-of-climate-change-email-row-stands-down-temporarily.html
I’ve not seen it on the BBC yet, I suspect that the “positioning” and spin that is going on in the BBC right no will be fun to see when it is manifest on this subject.
Phil Jones won’t be re-hired, if you are sane enough to know the contents of the subject, but I bet the Beeb will try to portray it as a minor side issue… interesting times?
“Phil Jones won’t be re-hired” except of course by the BBC
Noticed that the closer we get to “Copenhagen” the more wild and ridiculous the stories are becoming. They could learn a thing or two from Chicken Licken.
one falls down and the rest of the dishonest leftist warmist scum bags will soon implode
eco twats harrabin and dick black must be wondering whether this is the last christmas they have working for Al Beeb
fingers crossed
Scientist steps down for review
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8389727.stm
Is how the BBC reprts the fact about a de facto resignation and falling his sword. That’s what billions of dollars will do to a situation 😉
Jones is going to be ritually sacrificed to the God of copenhagen.
I feel sure we won’t see an example of this being reported with any actual information about the background as to why 😉
To be fair, the BBC has at least now published this essay arguing for much greater transparency in scientifi research – including climate stuff. And one of the authors is a Prof at the Uni. of East Anglia (whatever that is)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm
@ John Anderson, Hulme is being disingenous. He is implicated in the emails too quite badly, although I would agree he has made mitigating sounds before. He may be known as the Albert Speer of these episodes in later stories 😉
Although not a practising scientist, I do have a science degree and I get really sick of thick journalists with no knowledge of science telling me what to think.
No wonder journalism is the lowest regarded “profession”. Totally shameless.